See? You're locked in to one side, clearly. I just laid out both sides' possibilities but the only evidence presented so far comes from Irvin's side and no one else has said anything so I evaluate what's out there. You see me and others evaluating that and get offended because it's against what you want to see happen. This is no different than people whining about the refs and when I show up to present that people don't even know the rules they're railing against, they get offended, start calling me a relative of a ref, not a real fan, etc. because I have the gall to examine a possibility that's against what they want to see happen. Thus your "stop crucifying the man" comment. Not once have you even considered that Irvin could have said something untoward because you're locked in to the woman being a liar. This isn't hard to see. It's emotion, bro. Emotion coming to the rescue of bias. Any consideration of something other than what you want to see is a threat so it must be conspiracy then. You see how this all works together in sport and real life? Lol.
Like I said before. You just love to hear yourself talk.
I'm not at all offended. Innocent or guilty, doesn't change my life
either way. You're seeing through a lense that leans toward guilty. I'm
looking at it from a practical point of view.
Another example is Zeke at a parade pulling up a girl's shirt. People were
appalled. Reporters approached her waiting for a "me too" moment. She told
them she'd spent that night with him and wasn't hurt by it at all. It killed their
narrative. The narrative that every appalled person wanted so bad.
Here's where you come in. You're banking on the "possibility" that something
vulgar was said by Irvin. In a hotel lobby. Cameras and people everywhere.
He shakes the woman's hand and leaves her standing there. Body language
suggested nothing wrong happened according to bystanders.
(Certainly, he didn't come close to saying your previous example.)
I never said the woman was a liar. However she hasn't repeated what he supposedly
said. Which would be alledged anyway. Not fact.
People are programed to crucify (had to say it again just for you) any person
rumored to have allegedly done something. It's reported that way. Companies
react to it in a way to continue the narrative because people have gotten away
with it for so long. Now, "it's protocol", they say. All that ever does is push the
vast majority to see a guilty person. Like several in this thread. Which is what my
first comment was referring to before you came along thinking that only two of
us are talking... screaming "emotion, emotion, emotion".
Also, I'm not your bro. I think we're done here.
